Re: George Zimmerman Verdict
posted at 7/14/2013 7:29 PM EDT
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
How do you know and why do you keep saying he was an innocent 17yo?
How do you know he wasn't planning another burglary and acting suspicious in doing so?
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Martin was committing a crime or planning to commit a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him? Whether or not he had done something bad in the past is completely irrelevant.
As far as what was in his backpack at school, it has no bearing on this particular event. And, in fact, the Boston Globe reported this about the jewelry:
SANFORD, Fla.—Women's jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.
The conservative web site you refer to does not seem to be a very reliable source, but even if Martin had broken the law in the past, it's completely irrelevant to what happened when he was shot because there's no evidence at all that he was committing a crime then.
Well, the Miami Herald reported the same jewelry was found but did not tie it to the burglary, just blocks away. Regardless, the incident was kept internally and never disclosed.
The police did not tie it to the burglary either. The police department has stated that none of the items were reported stolen. Maybe they were stolen. But no charges were laid and no trial was ever held. You are convicting Martin on evidence even more flimsy than that against Zimmerman (who's fingerprints were the only ones on the gun used to kill Martin) and without any trial at all. Is only Zimmerman given the protection of being innocent unless proven guilty? It seems like you've convicted Martin based on flimsy newspaper articles . . . and decided that a death sentence isn't too much.
Sorry but wedding bands and diamond earrings along with a long flat head are not usually items 16 yr olds carry in their backpack and there is plenty reason to suspect a crime but it was never pursued. It was also never reported to his parents. Wouldn't you be asking questions if you found your child to be in possession of those. Would you accept that an unnamed friend gave them to him?
Would I think my kid deserved to be shot because he had jewelry? How 'bout you? If your kid came home from school with some jewelry, would you think it were okay if some guy decided to shoot him dead?
It's very possible that his past has everything to do with the case as the items were found in trying to find the marking instrument as he was also seen on film "acting suspiciously", hiding and ducking, and ultimately caught committing a crime as a result and suspended.
The initial call to 911 paints a similar scenario and as reported, there was a current problem with break-ins in the area.
Did Martin commit those break ins? Of is suspicion enough to kill someone just because a crime has happened that that person may or may not have been involved in? You're basically arguing that killing Martin was justified because someone (likely no him) had broken into someone's house.
He was doing what he always did in an attempt to deter a crime. He was a law abiding citizen with a license to carry a gun. What is the problem with that?
Well he shot a teenager dead who apparently was not in the act of committing a crime. I think that's problematic. I'm really delighted to find out though how many Americans really don't find any problem with it at all. Great place that country has become. I assume you also think Newtown was just something that happens . . . price we pay for the freedom to tote around guns . . .
There is also evidence as another poster stated that he did stop the pursuit, after being told to, and Martin came back to him.
The evidence is pretty weak both ways, which is why it was probably right to acquit Zimmerman. But Zimmerman's acquittal hardly means that Martin was convicted.
So what do you do then? Let the guy bash your head in and reach for your gun?
He was in a fight for his life with a not so innocent person.
He claims that. Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is there is no evidence either way other than Zimmerman's testimony. And let's face it, Zimmerman might have a reason to lie, no?
I really doubt he would have used it otherwise.
Yeah, people who walk around with guns, call the police and say a kid walking down the street looks suspicious, then tell the police "these assh*les always get away," then pursues the kid for 20 minutes, then gets out of his car to confront the kid certainly couldn't be looking for trouble. No, I'm sure Zimmerman had no idea why he was carrying that gun. Shooting someone with it never entered his mind.